John Jay: Proposals for Inclusion in a Trade Agreement, [c. 1 June 1783]
John Jay: Proposals for Inclusion in a Trade Agreement
[Paris, n.d., c. 1 June 1783]
Mr. Jay’s Draft1
Whereas a Variety of Circumstances and Considerations oppose the forming at Present a Permanent Treaty of Commerce between the Imperial Crown of Great Britain and the United States of America— And whereas it is expedient that a Commercial Intercourse should be without Delay opened and Regulated between the Kingdom and Territories of Great Britain and the said States by a temporary Convention. therefore
It is agreed that for a Term of from the Date hereof
Provided that the Subjects of his Britannic Majesty shall not have any Rights or Claim under this Convention to carry or import into the said States any Slaves from any Part of the World It being the Intention of the said States intirely to prohibit the Importation thereof.2
And whereas Questions may arise respecting the Operation of this Convention on Ireland— It is agreed that it shall not be construed to restrain that Kingdom from accepting from and granting to, the said States further & more extensive Commercial Privileges than that Ireland and the British American Colonies enjoyed with respect to each other before the late War.3
And whereas this Convention is dictated by Temporary Convenience, and the Discussion of Questions respecting Reciprocity has in forming of it been avoided therefore it is agreed that no Arguments shall be drawn from it for or against any Propositions or Claims which either Party may make in treating of and framing the proposed future Treaty of Commerce.
LbkC, DLC: Franklin (EJ: 10339).
1. JJ’s proposals are undated but are preceded in manuscript by JA’s proposed articles of June 1783. They are therefore assigned a similar date.
2. No evidence has been found for the grounds on which JJ concluded that the states were intending to prohibit the importation of slaves. JJ alone or in conjunction with the other American ministers had apparently first raised the slavery issue with Hartley in mid May. In his letter to Fox of 22 May 1783, Hartley reported that Americans had long been “discontented with the system of slavery prevalent among them” but had been unable to prevent slaves being brought to their ports. Thus, he noted, any attempt at the gradual abolition of slavery had been “suppressed in the beginning,” a situation they might hope to modify. In his reply of 10 June Fox indicated that, if the United States decided to prohibit the importation of slaves, Britain would not dispute with them about their own regulations, as long as the prohibition was extended to other European nations as well. See , 2: 127, 149.
3. The Navigation Acts of 1663 and 1671 had imposed restraints on trade between Ireland and the American colonies. Under the sponsorship of Lord North, Parliament had recently made commercial concessions to Ireland that Shelburne hoped might serve as a precedent for comprehensive reform of Britain’s navigation acts. Hartley believed that restoration of commerce with Ireland was implied in his proposed agreement of 14 June. He was subsequently forced to admit, however, that he had no power to sign the proposal. JA, however, feared the “secret Schemes” of British merchants to exclude Americans from trade with Ireland.
See Hartley’s proposed agreement, 14 June, and his letters to Fox of 20 and 27 June, and JA to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 23 June 1783, , 2: 154, 162–66, 168, 173–75; Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws (New York, 1939), 161, 162, 246; and , 1: 420–21.